Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NOs.: 16-58218 and 16-58219 DATE: 2016-09-09 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: 16-58218
B E T W E E N:
ELIZABETH DIAS Plaintiff
- and -
WORKPLACE SAFETY & INSURANCE BOARD/TRIBUNAL Defendants
Court File No.: 16-58219
B E T W E E N:
ELIZABETH DIAS Plaintiff
- and -
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO Defendant
HEARD: In Writing The Honourable Justice C.D. Braid
Endorsement
I. OVERVIEW
[1] Elizabeth Dias brought two actions in Hamilton Superior Court. Ms. Dias recently sued similar defendants in Toronto. The court found that the Toronto actions were frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process and dismissed the actions.
[2] The registrar referred the Hamilton files to me pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following receipt of written requests of the lawyers for the defendants. By endorsement dated August 17, 2016 (reported at 2016 ONSC 5226), the actions were stayed pending Ms. Dias being notified that the court was considering dismissing the action under Rule 2.1. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Hamilton actions should be dismissed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Written Submissions from Ms. Dias
[3] Pursuant to my earlier ruling, the registrar sent a notice to Ms. Dias, which stated that “the court is considering making an order dismissing this proceeding because it appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.” The notice provided Ms. Dias with an opportunity to provide written submissions as to why the actions should not be dismissed. I have now received and reviewed her submissions.
[4] The written submissions provided by Ms. Dias set out her position regarding her work history; injuries suffered; and treatment during her time as an employee of the LCBO. She complains about poor treatment by the WSIB in processing her claims for compensation for those workplace injuries. She states that she did not give the court in Toronto the materials that she has now submitted on the Hamilton actions.
[5] Unfortunately, the submissions did not address whether the actions are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. In particular, Ms. Dias has not provided an explanation for the following:
a) Similar actions were dismissed in the Toronto Superior Court of Justice earlier this year by Myers J., pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Dias has failed to reasonably explain why she is now suing the same defendants in Hamilton regarding the same matter.
b) In the Toronto actions, Myers J. found that Ms. Dias had no claim against LCBO or WSIB. The lack of jurisdiction to grant any remedy against the defendants is significant. Having received the dismissals of the Toronto actions, Ms. Dias was clearly aware of this issue. However, she has failed to address it in any way.
B. Is There a Claim Against WSIB and/or LCBO?
[6] I agree with and adopt the reasoning of Myers J. in the Toronto actions Dias v. WSIB/WSIAT, 2016 ONSC 1752 and Dias v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 3135. For the reasons set out below, Ms. Dias cannot sue WSIB or LCBO in the Hamilton actions.
[7] In the first Hamilton action, Ms. Dias sued WSIB and WSIAT concerning her unsuccessful workers compensation claim. In Ontario, the law does not allow a claimant to sue WSIB or the Tribunal when a claim is disallowed. Whether other avenues of review may be open to Ms. Dias, this civil action cannot succeed and is frivolous: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497.
[8] In the second Hamilton action, Ms. Dias sued the LCBO. Her complaints stem from allegations that she suffered work-related illness and consequent injuries from 1996 to 2004. WSIB denied her claims.
[9] There is no entitlement to claim damages in this court for an unsuccessful WSIB claim or to sue one’s employer in relation to the accident or disease contracted while in its employ: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497.
[10] Any remedy for a workplace injury lies with the WSIB: Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sch. A, s. 26(1) and (2). Moreover, the Board’s decisions may not be the subject of proceedings before a court: Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, s. 118(3).
C. Are These Claims Frivolous, Vexatious or an Abuse of Process?
[11] I find that the Hamilton actions are attempts to re-litigate or attack collaterally the decisions in the Toronto actions and/or by the tribunal. If Ms. Dias was dissatisfied with the decisions of the judge and/or of the tribunal, her remedy in each case was to exercise her rights of appeal.
[12] I further find that Ms. Dias is not entitled to claim damages against WSIB and LCBO for work-related illness and/or for an unsuccessful WSIB claim.
[13] Finally, I find that the frivolous, vexatious, and abusive nature of the proceedings is apparent on the face of the pleadings. The statements of claim in the Hamilton actions are not in a justiciable form as they do not include any claim for relief.
D. DISPOSITION
[14] The court makes the following orders:
a) These actions are dismissed with costs payable to the defendants, if demanded, after assessment of the quantum. I dispense with any requirement for Ms. Dias to approve the form or content of the formal dismissal order.
b) The Registrar shall send a copy of this endorsement to Ms. Dias and counsel for the defendants, and shall serve the formal dismissal order on Ms. Dias under Rule 2.1.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.